1. Home
  2. Point-Of-Sale Software
  3. MS doesn't want this information out? Why delete the discussion?

MS doesn't want this information out? Why delete the discussion?

OH MY GOD..

> > You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!! > > You have to DECLARE which computers will be opening POS??? > That totally stinks and is not fair. > > I bought this program because we have MANY computers that do back-office > functions and only a few entering orders. We have ONE cash register in our > store, and ONE shipping computer. > > MANY functions MUST be done in POS only---like entering a PAYMENT...which is > a BACK-OFFICE function but must be done is POS. So what do I have to do....go > out of my office, down stairs to one of my employees computers and enter the > payment?????? > > All my employees have their OWN computers, but EVERYONE can enter orders. > This FORCES us to have to SHARE computers between employees since now only > ONE of my computers will be able to enter orders. > > Changing to PER DEVICE from PER USER is a BREECH of trust and a SIGNIFICANT > change to the very nature of the program itself. It is NOT WHAT I PAID FOR! > > So instead of 3 licenses, I must have SIX!!!!!????????? double?? You are > insane. (all add-on programs are charged PER LANE also! that's more $$$$) > > I will never upgrade and I will immediately start looking for another POS > solution. > > AFTER ALL THIS MONEY AND TIME. .....{deleted for robot censorship} > > Thanks Microsoft.

Jas> I totally agree. I have about 10 stations that I use to access three

licenses. This allows multiple people at thier desktop to be a POS while > having only as many licenses as you need to run concurrently. > > A huge step backward is absolutely tright, and I am glad this came up, > because now I have a major reason I CANNOT "upgrade" to 2.0. > > Boneheaded... >

John M. wrote:

This licensing setup seems to be taking a "huge step" backwards. > > Let's take the very simple scenario of a single user license for POS and you > have 3 systems with RMS completely installed on it - 1 being the DB server, > 1- primarily a back office/manager system, and 1 POS station. You have a > failure at the POS station during the day and want to bring POS up on the > back office system while you fix the POS station. > > With today's dongle setup - no problems. With license keys - it appears you > are "dead in the water" unless you want to pay for a 2nd license key that > you really hope to never use - and OBTW, also pay support charges for 2 POS > stations each year. >

---------------------------------- andy - in relation to your questions;

1 - yes - this element of the licensing works in exactly the same way; it is only the POS application that requires a license key.

2 - no - the license key is per device and is therefore fixed to the first

4 devices you enter the key into.

3 - once you have licensed the application on the device, it can access as many databases as required (albeit one at a time).

4 - there isnt much documentation flying around at the moment - just keep peppering these forums with questions and I'm sure other resellers (such as ourselves) will respond to your query.

"Andy Miller - Teknor, > > I'm curious to how the licensing is going to be handled with Store Operations

> 2.0. I know it will be getting rid of the dongle and start using license > > keys. So how will this work? Let's pretend we have a 4 user license key: > > here are some questions I have... > > > > 1) If we have 4 point of sale screens open, are we still able to open the > > manager screens on other computers? Can we use the SO Manager on as many > > computers as we wish, just as we have done in the past? > > > > 2) With previous versions of RMS, we are able to open 4 point of sale > > screens on 4 different computers. If we want to open the POS screen on > > computer #5, we just needed to exit out of the POS screen from computer #2. > > We are able to open 4 POS screens on any 4 computers of our choice. Is this > > the same with Version 2.0? or do we have to specify the 4 POS computers, and > > thats just the way it is. POS wont be able to open on any other computers? > > > > 3) How does the Evaluation mode work? Is it the same? In previous versions, > > I could be connected to a LIVE database that has a dongle attached to it. If > > i wanted to provide support or testing, I could switch to a SAMPLE database > > that would run in an evaluation mode. Is this still possible? > > > > 4) Is there any documentation that I can refer to about the Store Operations > > 2.0 Licensing and how it works?
Reply to
Mickie
Loading thread data ...

Typical MS, as far as I can tell. Pointing to the wart on MS' nose and shouting is a good way to get censored.

Emphasizing a major change in licensing policy--especially one that will cost hundreds or even thousands of RMS users A LOT of money--while exclaiming "I will never upgrade and I will immediately start looking for another POS solution." is no way to win the hearts and minds of our invisible MS moderators.

I find the new policy troubling, and it will cause significant inconvenience for some of my stores.

Good luck with your search for new software.

Tom

"Mickie" wrote:

Reply to
Terrible Tom

We used to turn off one of our two POS lanes and use the license in the back occasionally, but that was a pain to do. We've since enabled Remote Desktop in XP to handle this. Our registers stay up all day long and if we need to make a payment or issue a refund from the office we log onto one of the registers instantly and just do it. This works a heck of a lot better than shutting down a station to use the POS in back.

If you are doing any kind of volume on your shipping stations, I'd say you are better off with more POS licenses. But if you want to share the POS lanes, Remote Desktop is the way to go. The licensing change in RMS 2.0 won't affect this. You are remotely controlling the PCs on the network.

FYI other POS systems charge per workstation no matter what you plan to run.

Mark S.

"Mickie" wrote:

Reply to
Mark S

I am seriously considering getting together a group of investors to BURY Microsoft in the POS arena. This licensing change is the last straw. I think a few teenagers could write a better out-of-the-box front end for POS and back office functions, all while making it open to customization.

The cost of developing RMS has got to be FAR below other Microsoft applications that have much more liberal licensing requirements. I don't understand why they continue to stick it to us - I guess they assume we retailers have deep pockets (or big credit lines).

Reply to
Jason

HMMM.

That's a great idea. I use remote desktop to get to my desk computer from home so I can work. But, I have never thought about using it internally.

Thanks.

"Mark S" wrote:

Reply to
Mickie

Does this mean that you can run RMS POS screen , not using the backend function, the actual POS portion, on upto 4 different computers, at seperate times, with the one licencse? I understand that you cant run X amount of POS concurrently, but you can run it one at a time on seperate machines? i am deciding to go with RMS or another at the moment, and this could be a definate deciding factor. If anyone can help that would be AWSOME!! Please enlighten me!!

Jeremy

"Mickie" wrote:

Reply to
Jeremy K

Version 1.3 uses CONCURRENT licenses....which means only x people can be using the POS portion at any one time. (where x is the number of licenses you purchased)

Version 2.0 uses DEVICE licenses, which is totally and completely different and a significant change....which of course they never mentioned when I was paying my big $$ yearly fee to get the privilege of having this worthless upgrade.

Device licenses means you have to SPECIFY which computers will be running the POS portion. NO OTHER COMPUTERS can run it. All other computers can do back office functions only...no entering orders, no shipping, etc.

In our case, that means we would have to DOUBLE the number of licenses we own...BIG $$$$$ which would also increase the costs of our add-on programs like SHIPRUSH and Digital Retail Solution's AUTOGEN, MATRIX-MASTER etc. because their subscription rates are based on # of licenses.

All-in-all that means a LOT MORE money EVERY YEAR just to run this program. NOT what I was originally sold.

It is the ULTIMATE BAIT & SWITCH.

That is why I will NOT be installing this upgrade and will NOT be returning my dongle.

Jeremy K wrote:

Reply to
Mickie

HMMM.

That's a great idea. I use remote desktop to get to my desk computer from home so I can work. But, I have never thought about using it internally.

Thanks.

"Mark S" wrote:

Reply to
CptSoft

I really hope they are listening. This is nonsense. I am furious at the licensing changes.

Reply to
Jason

we are RMS resellers in the UK and I can understand where you are coming from.You mentioned taking payments in the back office as one of the reasons you need to use a POS license, is there anything else that you specifically couldnt live without. I'm thinking there is an opening for a 'cheap' add on to RMS providing a web front end to perform some of these 'simpler' tasks.

Sorry if it sounds like i'm only only out to make a fast buck but i can't see Microsoft changing their policy and its a massive investment to either purchase new licenses or replace a complete system - this might work for everyone.

I'd be > Why did MS delete this thread?

Reply to
SteveCTSRetail

Bravo. I'd like to see a third party front-end developed that uses the RMS database schema. Then they could take their per license model and go pound sand. There's nothing in the database that is checking what program is accessing the database - only the front ends require the licenses.

"Steve @ CTS Retail" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@microsoft.com...

Reply to
Jason

I need to import web orders, enter payments, etc from all over our work area. Sometimes, we need to "man" the gunroom and we can be working on entering orders from eBay or Amazon while we are in there babysitting the store....even though that computer is not the normal one we use to enter orders.

When we are done entering orders at our desk, then we close the program and open it in the shipping room.

That is why I bought this program....CONCURRENT USE was a MAIN CONCERN of mine since we have a few people that jump over a large area.

I will not upgrade.

Jas> Bravo. I'd like to see a third party front-end developed that uses the RMS

Reply to
Mickie

Have any normal users been granted a development or testing license or is this a partner only benefit? Would ringing Microsoft and explaining the situation below help?

I've written a number of addins to RMS and replaced the really poor lookup screen with my own resizable version as we badly needed the extended description. It allows any user selectable product field columns and simple multi select filters for suppliers and departments. Most of our products are selected without using barcode scanners. My template customisations are huge and almost completely rewritten to accommodate the warehouse picking slips and delivery dockets.

All my development is done on a separate machine and Network running a trial version with the latest copy of the real database to avoid the licensing lockout issues. It would be impossible for me to develop and test onsite.

Version 2.0 will affect the warehouse and store somewhat as we have two licenses and five computers all of which occasionally process orders and payments. The suggested remote desktop solution sounds plausible to counter this.

The issue for me is testing and development. I have a full MSDN Premium Subscription which includes every Dynamics Product except RMS. I haven't done any RMS work for nearly a year but need to do some shortly and the new version was step one. A separate license is not an option for my occasional dabbles.

This change means we cannot upgrade despite paying our maintenance religiously.

I'm fairly stunned and very annoyed at this decision.

Mick

"Mickie" wrote:

Reply to
Mick Hardy

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.